divewizard
perspicaz
I have four backs for my Hasselblad 500C/M with a 80mm CF lens.
Since I use North Coast Photographic Services (NCPS) to do all of my black and white processing and scanning I wanted to see what the results would be if I took the exact same shot with four different film types. The films I choose for this experiment were Ilford Delta 100, Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100, Kodak TMAX 100, and Ilford Pan F (ISO 50).
I mounted the camera on a tripod, focused the lens, set the exposure, and only changed the exposure time to one stop longer for the Pan F. I checked the scene with the meter before each shot to ensure the lighting did not change. For this image the exposure was F/11 @ 1/60s for the three ISO 100 samples and F/11 @ 1/30s for the Pan F.
All four of these shots were made using a Hoya O(G) orange filter. I also used a O(G) filter on Pentax digital spotmeter when I metered the scene. There has been no adjustment to the scans I received from NCPS except to add my © and to resize them. You can click on each image to see the full sized scan.
I have a few more examples I will post, but this is the first. Which one do you prefer? Can you guess what film was used to record each image?
Sample 1:
Sample 2:
Sample 3:
Sample 4:
©2011 Chris Grossman
Since I use North Coast Photographic Services (NCPS) to do all of my black and white processing and scanning I wanted to see what the results would be if I took the exact same shot with four different film types. The films I choose for this experiment were Ilford Delta 100, Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100, Kodak TMAX 100, and Ilford Pan F (ISO 50).
I mounted the camera on a tripod, focused the lens, set the exposure, and only changed the exposure time to one stop longer for the Pan F. I checked the scene with the meter before each shot to ensure the lighting did not change. For this image the exposure was F/11 @ 1/60s for the three ISO 100 samples and F/11 @ 1/30s for the Pan F.
All four of these shots were made using a Hoya O(G) orange filter. I also used a O(G) filter on Pentax digital spotmeter when I metered the scene. There has been no adjustment to the scans I received from NCPS except to add my © and to resize them. You can click on each image to see the full sized scan.
I have a few more examples I will post, but this is the first. Which one do you prefer? Can you guess what film was used to record each image?
Sample 1:
Sample 2:
Sample 3:
Sample 4:
©2011 Chris Grossman
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
Cool comparison. I'm not going to wager a guess since I've used exactly one of those films (PanF+) and I've only ever used it twice. I have used a bit of Plus-X in the past and plan on shooting the T-Max 100 I have soon, but...
Anyway, the first and last clearly have the most contrast to my eye. Whether that is something innate to the film or something that could be equalized amongst all four shots by development changes is unknown. At first it looks good to me, but 3 and 2 (in order of decreasing contrast) have nice detail in the darker rocks. And you could always compensate for the lower contrast by tweaking development and/or printing at a harder grade/adjusting curves. If I was shooting with 2, I'd definitely increase the contrast by some means for the final image.
1 is the grainiest, followed by 4, then 2 and 3 are kind of tied. I say kind of tied because 3 is kind of mushy looking to me, with noticeably less detail than 2. It may be a hair grainier, but it's probably not important.
2 has the best shadow detail. This is probably related to contrast and scanning, so it's hard to tell if it's actually faster.
2 has the best resolution in my mind, while 1 looks pretty good too, but that's in part due to it's enhanced grain. Still not bad though. 4 is pretty good too, lagging a bit behind 1, while 3, just looks mushy to me.
In terms of which one I like the most, depending on my goals, I'd pick either 1 or 2. 2 for more detail/larger enlargements, 1 for more punch/grit. 4 might a decent compromise between the two, but I gravitate towards 1 or 2. 1 has the coolest waves
Anyway, the first and last clearly have the most contrast to my eye. Whether that is something innate to the film or something that could be equalized amongst all four shots by development changes is unknown. At first it looks good to me, but 3 and 2 (in order of decreasing contrast) have nice detail in the darker rocks. And you could always compensate for the lower contrast by tweaking development and/or printing at a harder grade/adjusting curves. If I was shooting with 2, I'd definitely increase the contrast by some means for the final image.
1 is the grainiest, followed by 4, then 2 and 3 are kind of tied. I say kind of tied because 3 is kind of mushy looking to me, with noticeably less detail than 2. It may be a hair grainier, but it's probably not important.
2 has the best shadow detail. This is probably related to contrast and scanning, so it's hard to tell if it's actually faster.
2 has the best resolution in my mind, while 1 looks pretty good too, but that's in part due to it's enhanced grain. Still not bad though. 4 is pretty good too, lagging a bit behind 1, while 3, just looks mushy to me.
In terms of which one I like the most, depending on my goals, I'd pick either 1 or 2. 2 for more detail/larger enlargements, 1 for more punch/grit. 4 might a decent compromise between the two, but I gravitate towards 1 or 2. 1 has the coolest waves
Snowbuzz
Well-known
I love this pic, dive! Anyway, #2 looks 'safe' as the shadows and highlights don't look blocked up on a calibrated Dell U2711 monitor. You can adjust that one to taste, I guess. I don't know if the other scans will have retrievable shadow and highlight detail from these pics though it's very possible to pull stuff out of a good scan. I don't know how NCPS does their developing or how they set the black point for scanning, so that's always at hit-or-miss affair for me.
redisburning
Well-known
I'd guess, in order of "confidence"
2 is PanF
3 is delta 100
...
4 is acro? 1 is tmax?
2 is PanF
3 is delta 100
...
4 is acro? 1 is tmax?
Tim Gray
Well-known
Oh I guess I should guess something. I'd say 2 is T-Max. At the very least, it's not PanF+.
divewizard
perspicaz
Any more guesses?
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I appreciate the raw scan comparisons, and the image looks great.
I would be interested to know which, if any, film gives the best result after post processing? I might vote for taking the flatter scan and adjusting it in post.
I would be interested to know which, if any, film gives the best result after post processing? I might vote for taking the flatter scan and adjusting it in post.
bob338
Well-known
1. Ilford Pan F (ISO 50)
2. Ilford Delta 100(i like this one best)
3. Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100
4. Kodak TMAX 100
I've never used Neopan, so it is number 3 by process of elimination. I'm pretty confident in my choices for the others.
Bob
2. Ilford Delta 100(i like this one best)
3. Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100
4. Kodak TMAX 100
I've never used Neopan, so it is number 3 by process of elimination. I'm pretty confident in my choices for the others.
Bob
Last edited:
IK13
Established
If I have to vote for which one I like the way it is now, then I pick #1, otherwise #2 takes my vote, because I think will allow more room for post processing.
dct
perpetual amateur
I don't know much about b&w emulsion to guess the brands and don't have a calibrated monitor either. But I can tell you which JPG image looks best to my eyes:
#1 looks on a 1st glance very appealing. But a closer look shows too enhanced highlights, in my opinion.
#4 ist better, but it seems too dark on some rocks. It looses details too.
#2 looks pretty flat but more normal to my eyes.
#3 is my favorite, beeing better enhanced as #2 but well balanced between #1 and #4
What I would like to read explained: Are these big differences coming from the emulsion itself? Or is it a difference inherited by the developing process? Or are there differences in automatic calibration of the scan devices at NCPS?
#1 looks on a 1st glance very appealing. But a closer look shows too enhanced highlights, in my opinion.
#4 ist better, but it seems too dark on some rocks. It looses details too.
#2 looks pretty flat but more normal to my eyes.
#3 is my favorite, beeing better enhanced as #2 but well balanced between #1 and #4
What I would like to read explained: Are these big differences coming from the emulsion itself? Or is it a difference inherited by the developing process? Or are there differences in automatic calibration of the scan devices at NCPS?
Last edited:
porktaco
Well-known
cool.
v interested in results
v interested in results
divewizard
perspicaz
Here is the answer.
Sample 1: Ilford Delta 100
Sample 2: Kodak TMAX 100
Sample 3: Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100
Sample 4: Ilford Pan F+ 50
©2011 Chris Grossman
Sample 1: Ilford Delta 100
Sample 2: Kodak TMAX 100
Sample 3: Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100
Sample 4: Ilford Pan F+ 50
©2011 Chris Grossman
Tim Gray
Well-known
Cool results. Kind of mirrored my prejudices, but since I don't have experience with the films, I didn't want to go around blabbing them
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that PanF+ really isn't as fine grained as most people think it is. I'm kind of surprised at the mushiness of Acros's grain, and a bit at how relatively grainy Delta 100 is too. Delta has some bite to it, at least when NCPS processes it. And man does T-Max resolve. Cool stuff. I'm trying to get more into slow speed films, so this is really useful to me.
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that PanF+ really isn't as fine grained as most people think it is. I'm kind of surprised at the mushiness of Acros's grain, and a bit at how relatively grainy Delta 100 is too. Delta has some bite to it, at least when NCPS processes it. And man does T-Max resolve. Cool stuff. I'm trying to get more into slow speed films, so this is really useful to me.
IK13
Established
Very informative.
Do you happen to know what developer does NPCS use?
They probably don't change developer, but I wonder If they adjust the time for the individual types of films...
I have no experience with it, but from what I've seen on the net, I expected Delta to be a little more subtle...
Oh, and I have to try some T-MAX!
Do you happen to know what developer does NPCS use?
They probably don't change developer, but I wonder If they adjust the time for the individual types of films...
I have no experience with it, but from what I've seen on the net, I expected Delta to be a little more subtle...
Oh, and I have to try some T-MAX!
divewizard
perspicaz
I asked and they said they use Clayton F76+ for all black and white. They adjust the developing time for the film type and for push/pull processing.
Chris
Last edited:
Snowbuzz
Well-known
I know 'A and I' and a couple other pro labs used to use XTOL, dip and dunk. The thing is we have no idea what development times they used or what their agitation process is either. For their part they have no idea how you meter, or expose your film, or how contrasty the scene was, so they can't compensate in developing. I really think having someone else develop your b&w film is a last resort: better to shoot C41 b&w IMO if lab development can't be avoided. Just my 2 cents, of course.
divewizard
perspicaz
I have tried A&I many times over the years. I get far better and more consistent results, especially the scans from NCPS for much less money.
I am willing to bet that NCPS's processing produces far more consistent results in their very clean temperature controlled environment than most home developers do. It would be nice if I had the time and facilitates to do my own processing and scanning, but I do not. I would much rather use the limited time I have shooting pictures rather than processing and scanning them myself. Although I get a occasional dust particle in s scan from NCPS, I have never been able to get scans that dust free in my home. I only wish the scan s coulud be 16 bits/color instead of 8 so I had more post processing adjustment latitude.
I find that I prefer the look of true B&W films over the chromogenic C41 films I have tried.
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
That's possible, but far more important in my mind with home development is the ability to tweak the process to MY liking. I might like my Tri-X developed for 10% shorter than whatever the time suggested for F76 for the way I meter. Or maybe I like TMX done 10% longer. Or maybe Acros stinks in F76 and you'd prefer it in another developer. Etc.
Unless the lab is willing to take detailed instructions like that, I think the home user can do a more custom and consistent job. It's really not that hard to cool/heat your dev to the right temperature in a water bath and time the process consistently with a watch. Now maybe you are right and this is beyond the abilities of most home developers, if that's the case, that speaks more about the ability of said people than any intrinsic difficulty in the process
Snowbuzz
Well-known
That's cool: appreciate your reasoning.